Baseball America note
Are HS (and maybe even college) guys really taking PEDs anymore?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Are HS (and maybe even college) guys really taking PEDs anymore?
We shall see.
As far as the top 200 prospects only being tested this is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Who determines that. You either do everyone or no one. MLB should force all teams to have one way of doing things.
Is this difficult, test each drafted (or FA) player before they sign their contract, to be null and void if negative for anything after they take a test.
Or put a provison in the milb contract if you test positive after signing your contract it becomes null and void.
My son signed his contract after his medical exam and then when he got to his destination had to test. If his medical exam was not good, he wouldn't have signed, so why not the same for a drug test?
Good idea but I am not sure I understand their way of going about it.
JMO.
Is this difficult, test each drafted (or FA) player before they sign their contract, to be null and void if negative for anything after they take a test.
Or put a provison in the milb contract if you test positive after signing your contract it becomes null and void.
My son signed his contract after his medical exam and then when he got to his destination had to test. If his medical exam was not good, he wouldn't have signed, so why not the same for a drug test?
Good idea but I am not sure I understand their way of going about it.
JMO.
quote:Originally posted by infidel_08:
Are HS (and maybe even college) guys really taking PEDs anymore?
Sadly, Yes, they are. Testing is spotty, infrequent, inconsistent, beatable. There is no HGH test. PEDs are readily available. With all the news players are more wary, but more aware. Worst of all we have become a drug culture. Whatever ails you drugs are seen as the answer. As much a circus as they were, I think the Mitchell report and the Senate hearings have made huge progress in the right direction, but the fight is not by any means over.
44
.
.
...and I would agree with TPM....
...more regulation without really thinking out the program or the consequences...
I figure that MLB hired the NCAA Baseball rules committee to "think" this thing out for them...
44
.
...and I would agree with TPM....
...more regulation without really thinking out the program or the consequences...
I figure that MLB hired the NCAA Baseball rules committee to "think" this thing out for them...
44.
It looks like the new pre draft PED testing is for real.
Jerseyson received an overnight package today from the “Commissioners” office telling him he must take a drug test if he wants to be considered eligible for the 2008 draft.
Congratulations kid, because of your outstanding baseball skills you have been selected to pee in a cup!
I sure hope the byproducts of Pop Tarts and Gatorade doesn’t bring back a positive reading as a PED.
Jerseyson received an overnight package today from the “Commissioners” office telling him he must take a drug test if he wants to be considered eligible for the 2008 draft.
Congratulations kid, because of your outstanding baseball skills you have been selected to pee in a cup!
I sure hope the byproducts of Pop Tarts and Gatorade doesn’t bring back a positive reading as a PED.
guess he might as well get use to it....
With the plethora of laws governing privacy rights, both federal and in various states, it would be hard to imagine this won't be challenged, perhaps many times.
To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single law that would permit drug testing of someone until after they have "applied" for a job, or by analogy to the NCAA, when they are a member of a team and actually in competition within the rules of the governing body.
To single out 200 prospects,when you don't test prospect 201, when none of the baseball designated prospects has ever "applied" for anything with MLB, when some/many of these may not even be drafted, and demand they be tested before they can be considered for the draft, has so many legal implications when contrasted with drug testing/privacy rights and employment laws that the final chapter cannot yet be written.
To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single law that would permit drug testing of someone until after they have "applied" for a job, or by analogy to the NCAA, when they are a member of a team and actually in competition within the rules of the governing body.
To single out 200 prospects,when you don't test prospect 201, when none of the baseball designated prospects has ever "applied" for anything with MLB, when some/many of these may not even be drafted, and demand they be tested before they can be considered for the draft, has so many legal implications when contrasted with drug testing/privacy rights and employment laws that the final chapter cannot yet be written.
Yeah Jerseydad,
I guess congratulations Are in order!
Your Son's hard work is being rewarded.
I guess congratulations Are in order!
Your Son's hard work is being rewarded.
quote:Originally posted by floridafan:
Yeah Jerseydad,
I guess congratulations Are in order!
Your Son's hard work is being rewarded.
So I guess the key to eligibility for the draft may be made of liquid gold,.....so to speak, eh? 
OMG,..my son would pee in that cup so fast he'd barely have time to say " Thank you sir, may I have a 'nother! " ha!
Congrats jerseydad and to your son!!!!
( I understand the jest of your post,...but I also wanted to congratulate your son too. That's quite an accomplishment!!! Good stuff kid!!! )
Now get back to drinking the ol' H20 and no poppyseed bagels for a while!
OMG,..my son would pee in that cup so fast he'd barely have time to say " Thank you sir, may I have a 'nother! " ha!
quote:I guess the good news is that Jerseyson must be considered as one of the top 200 prospects for this year’s draft…
Congrats jerseydad and to your son!!!!
( I understand the jest of your post,...but I also wanted to congratulate your son too. That's quite an accomplishment!!! Good stuff kid!!! )
Now get back to drinking the ol' H20 and no poppyseed bagels for a while!
infielddad ...
I had exactly the same thoughts that you had and posted as such on a Dbacks' forum. To think that this could stand up in court is laughable to me. There is too much subjectivity in determining who the likely 200 candidates would be. Also, from my perspective, which I think you intimated in your post, eligibility for the MLB draft is not like NFL or NBA where the college players must declare that they are entering the draft. There is no commitment to Major League Baseball by a ball player before the draft, and I do not believe that the MLB will be able to hold prospective draftees hostage without a major court case.
It is bad enough that our pro guys play the game they love for a pittance of an income, but to try and subject them to pre-employment testing, before they are even employed, is ridiculous in my mind. I think this will be interesting to follow, but I am still shaking my head over the whole concept. Because MLB didn't do their job of better policing their players, the new kids on the block (who haven't even packed up the moving van to move to that block) are being asked to subject themselves this this testing or to be considered ineligible.
What I would like to know ... who the heck thought this one up?
I had exactly the same thoughts that you had and posted as such on a Dbacks' forum. To think that this could stand up in court is laughable to me. There is too much subjectivity in determining who the likely 200 candidates would be. Also, from my perspective, which I think you intimated in your post, eligibility for the MLB draft is not like NFL or NBA where the college players must declare that they are entering the draft. There is no commitment to Major League Baseball by a ball player before the draft, and I do not believe that the MLB will be able to hold prospective draftees hostage without a major court case.
It is bad enough that our pro guys play the game they love for a pittance of an income, but to try and subject them to pre-employment testing, before they are even employed, is ridiculous in my mind. I think this will be interesting to follow, but I am still shaking my head over the whole concept. Because MLB didn't do their job of better policing their players, the new kids on the block (who haven't even packed up the moving van to move to that block) are being asked to subject themselves this this testing or to be considered ineligible.
What I would like to know ... who the heck thought this one up?
This might sound like a nieve question, so I apologize in advance. I have no clue how this stuff works. My son is at the HS level, just beatin' it out one game at a time.
But it is always interesting to learn.
Does this mean that only the Top 200 draft picks are being tested before the draft? And what about the others that do not fall into the top 200?
Are they not going to be considered for the lower rounds because they didnt get pre-tested?
But it is always interesting to learn.
Does this mean that only the Top 200 draft picks are being tested before the draft? And what about the others that do not fall into the top 200?
Are they not going to be considered for the lower rounds because they didnt get pre-tested?
FBM, having learned possibly too much about the business of MLB, I know some of my posts can be hard to accept by those who "dream" about it for their son's, and the recognition a package of this type brings.
So I make my comments with some trepidation.
One thing seems for sure: if all 200 of those getting these packages were to say "NO," and MLB could not draft any one of them, my bets are MLB would change it's stance.
MLB knows that won't happen because many of these have that "dream" and they don't have any power that can be exerted as a group like MLB and the MLBPA do.
So I make my comments with some trepidation.
One thing seems for sure: if all 200 of those getting these packages were to say "NO," and MLB could not draft any one of them, my bets are MLB would change it's stance.
MLB knows that won't happen because many of these have that "dream" and they don't have any power that can be exerted as a group like MLB and the MLBPA do.
.
Beyond the legalities and the ethics and the congrats...
...we have come to a place where a whole generation of baseball parents will be rejoicing upon receiving a "pee in the cup" request...
"Why so down 44?"
"Really bad week, my son was not asked to pee by MLB."
...Gotta' love the absurdity...
44
.
Beyond the legalities and the ethics and the congrats...
...we have come to a place where a whole generation of baseball parents will be rejoicing upon receiving a "pee in the cup" request...
"Why so down 44?"
"Really bad week, my son was not asked to pee by MLB."
...Gotta' love the absurdity...
44.
O'44,
that one is not only hilarious, it is priceless!!!
that one is not only hilarious, it is priceless!!!
Please help me to understand the " absurdity ". I'm not understanding.
FBM, perhaps this was thought up by the same rocket scientists who came up with the drug policies they've had for years. It'll work about as well.
On the other hand, there probably still are too many in HS and the various college levels who are cheating. I took the BA article, pasted the link into an email and sent it out to all of my older players. I finished by saying that while I hope and believe that none of them use this garbage, that if anyone does this will hopefully give them another reason to reconsider their ill-advised activity.
On the other hand, there probably still are too many in HS and the various college levels who are cheating. I took the BA article, pasted the link into an email and sent it out to all of my older players. I finished by saying that while I hope and believe that none of them use this garbage, that if anyone does this will hopefully give them another reason to reconsider their ill-advised activity.
JD,
At least with son's reputation for control, you shouldn't have to worry about him missing the target!
(Ba dum PUM!)
But seriously, look at it this way. If your son is competing with someone using PED's, that competition is about to go away, and your son can move on up the list.
Meanwhile, the PED kid can learn a lesson while hopefully he's young enough to clean up his act and come back in a few years.
At least with son's reputation for control, you shouldn't have to worry about him missing the target!
(Ba dum PUM!)
But seriously, look at it this way. If your son is competing with someone using PED's, that competition is about to go away, and your son can move on up the list.
Meanwhile, the PED kid can learn a lesson while hopefully he's young enough to clean up his act and come back in a few years.
I get the legalities,...and I agree that I'm not sure how this will ever truely work,...but if the MLB wants clean applicants and no one has anything to hide, then why the absurdity?
Please explain. I know I am sounding like an air head. ( What can I say? New baseball sun highlights. )
Please explain. I know I am sounding like an air head. ( What can I say? New baseball sun highlights.
)
I don’t know anything about the legalities that might be involved. But if they are testing my kid as one of the top 200 and not everyone else in the draft… I want a guarantee that he is going to be picked in the first 200!
In theory this looks like a pretty good idea, with good intentions. However, I think it’s full of holes from a practical standpoint.
Top 200 draft prospects??? That changes weekly!!! Does that mean an untested player can’t go in the first 200 picks? Wouldn’t that eliminate all surprises in the early rounds? We all know that there are many surprises every draft in the early rounds.
Every year there are players who surface out of nowhere just before the draft. Others who were not among the top 200 draft prospects yet become top 200 picks. What do they do about those players? Hurry up and test them or do they not draft them?
Another question… Maybe someone knows the answer… How long does it take to get the results of the test?
Personally, I would think that mandatory testing before signing would make much more sense. Then the club can decide if they still want to sign the player and clean him up. It just seems like testing before the draft is going to be a confusing mess.
Or, maybe they should start with first round candidates only, that would cut the number about in half. The names of those who were tested would leak out and create even more interest for those following the draft. Not only that, I think you would find all kinds of players volunteering to be tested. Untested players would be eliminated from being selected in the first round, where most of the big money is.
In theory this looks like a pretty good idea, with good intentions. However, I think it’s full of holes from a practical standpoint.
Top 200 draft prospects??? That changes weekly!!! Does that mean an untested player can’t go in the first 200 picks? Wouldn’t that eliminate all surprises in the early rounds? We all know that there are many surprises every draft in the early rounds.
Every year there are players who surface out of nowhere just before the draft. Others who were not among the top 200 draft prospects yet become top 200 picks. What do they do about those players? Hurry up and test them or do they not draft them?
Another question… Maybe someone knows the answer… How long does it take to get the results of the test?
Personally, I would think that mandatory testing before signing would make much more sense. Then the club can decide if they still want to sign the player and clean him up. It just seems like testing before the draft is going to be a confusing mess.
Or, maybe they should start with first round candidates only, that would cut the number about in half. The names of those who were tested would leak out and create even more interest for those following the draft. Not only that, I think you would find all kinds of players volunteering to be tested. Untested players would be eliminated from being selected in the first round, where most of the big money is.
PG good points.
Test all players after the draft before they sign and allow a provision their contract is null and void if they test positive. This would also allow for more $$ for later picks who want more $$ to sign. Mine got tested after he signed and arrived to his team, however, not sure if everyone did that. What's fair is fair, do it for everyone.
This would also be a strong deterrant.
If the cost is too high, let MLB pay, they sure do have the funds.
As I said, good intentions, poor planning.
Test all players after the draft before they sign and allow a provision their contract is null and void if they test positive. This would also allow for more $$ for later picks who want more $$ to sign. Mine got tested after he signed and arrived to his team, however, not sure if everyone did that. What's fair is fair, do it for everyone.
This would also be a strong deterrant.
If the cost is too high, let MLB pay, they sure do have the funds.
As I said, good intentions, poor planning.
ssmom,
MLB is trying to do something with "draft prospects" that no other employer in the US would be entitled to do....test them based on MLB's interest in them as a candidate for the draft rather than the player applying to play.
This would be something similar to IBM/Wal Mart, etc going to Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Williams, Amherst and every other top school in the US and telling every top graduating senior they need to take a drug test to be considered eligible to apply for work.
It might be nice that no one in the US uses drugs, including every graduating college senior at a top university.
But it isn't the right of the any company in the United States, except MLB???, to make a contingency of applying the taking of a test.
According to what I read, it isn't necessary to pass. So, it would seem that prevention isn't the issue. If a player does not pass, that gets sent to all teams, but they still can draft the player. They are not saying they want the player to be clean.
My guess is they are saying they want to know so they can draft and bargain the bonus accordingly.
MLB is saying it does not believe in the right to privacy of any potential draft prospect. I wish I could say I am surprised, but I am not.
MLB says they can do things that no other business in this country can.
MLB is trying to do something with "draft prospects" that no other employer in the US would be entitled to do....test them based on MLB's interest in them as a candidate for the draft rather than the player applying to play.
This would be something similar to IBM/Wal Mart, etc going to Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Williams, Amherst and every other top school in the US and telling every top graduating senior they need to take a drug test to be considered eligible to apply for work.
It might be nice that no one in the US uses drugs, including every graduating college senior at a top university.
But it isn't the right of the any company in the United States, except MLB???, to make a contingency of applying the taking of a test.
According to what I read, it isn't necessary to pass. So, it would seem that prevention isn't the issue. If a player does not pass, that gets sent to all teams, but they still can draft the player. They are not saying they want the player to be clean.
My guess is they are saying they want to know so they can draft and bargain the bonus accordingly.
MLB is saying it does not believe in the right to privacy of any potential draft prospect. I wish I could say I am surprised, but I am not.
MLB says they can do things that no other business in this country can.
quote:Originally posted by jerseydad:
It looks like the new pre draft PED testing is for real.
Jerseyson received an overnight package today from the “Commissioners” office telling him he must take a drug test if he wants to be considered eligible for the 2008 draft.
Congratulations kid, because of your outstanding baseball skills you have been selected to pee in a cup!
I sure hope the byproducts of Pop Tarts and Gatorade doesn’t bring back a positive reading as a PED.
Wow, I just went back and read this. I agree with most of the things said here, I really question if this is the legal thing to do and the right way to go about it, but I will bet all prospects will do it.
TPM,
Here is what I am speculating might happen with one/a few "prospects" of high value.
Since MLB identified them as being in the top 200, the player has a decent argument that if they continue to perform, they would have been drafted.
Someone will likely sue MLB in an effort to enjoin the testing and that would occur not long before the draft.
They will also refuse the test, seemingly go undrafted, and then sue MLB asserting the demand to be tested is/was unlawful.
I would give that lawsuit a very legitimate chance of success based on the current law. The damages would be, amongst other things, the signing bonus, other damages and the the testing requirement being declared invalid.
In effect, unless the law changes drastically on privacy rights, MLB could lose the lawsuit, have the bonus be included in the damages, have the testing requirement be declared invalid, and the player declared a free agent where they could have all of those rights.
MLB I am sure will also be very, very careful about the management of this information.
If a certain player is in the top 200, and is readily agreed to be a first round pick, but goes undrafted, the implications become obvious. That again could well be suggestive of the player being adversely impacted for exercising their right to privacy, giving rise to other lawsuits.
Personally, I hate to see most anyone, especially 19-21 year olds involved in litigation.
On the other hand, I have to think MLB is paying very close attention to each and every issue and they are willing to make these test issues.
These are very high stakes problems, which as everyone here points out, seemingly could be avoided by doing the testing post draft.
But, last year, scouts pointed out how hard it was for them to know if PED's were used, and if so, the projection when the drug testing within Milb was applied.
MLB seems like they are trying to do through testing predraft what scouts cannot. I sure wonder if it was a good place to draw the line in the sand.
Here is what I am speculating might happen with one/a few "prospects" of high value.
Since MLB identified them as being in the top 200, the player has a decent argument that if they continue to perform, they would have been drafted.
Someone will likely sue MLB in an effort to enjoin the testing and that would occur not long before the draft.
They will also refuse the test, seemingly go undrafted, and then sue MLB asserting the demand to be tested is/was unlawful.
I would give that lawsuit a very legitimate chance of success based on the current law. The damages would be, amongst other things, the signing bonus, other damages and the the testing requirement being declared invalid.
In effect, unless the law changes drastically on privacy rights, MLB could lose the lawsuit, have the bonus be included in the damages, have the testing requirement be declared invalid, and the player declared a free agent where they could have all of those rights.
MLB I am sure will also be very, very careful about the management of this information.
If a certain player is in the top 200, and is readily agreed to be a first round pick, but goes undrafted, the implications become obvious. That again could well be suggestive of the player being adversely impacted for exercising their right to privacy, giving rise to other lawsuits.
Personally, I hate to see most anyone, especially 19-21 year olds involved in litigation.
On the other hand, I have to think MLB is paying very close attention to each and every issue and they are willing to make these test issues.
These are very high stakes problems, which as everyone here points out, seemingly could be avoided by doing the testing post draft.
But, last year, scouts pointed out how hard it was for them to know if PED's were used, and if so, the projection when the drug testing within Milb was applied.
MLB seems like they are trying to do through testing predraft what scouts cannot. I sure wonder if it was a good place to draw the line in the sand.
IFD,
I was thinking what you posted, mainly the implications.
I am not sure, but could be (and what was told before this really got serious) based on what makes some sense
, the player gets tested and is revealed the results and then asked if they would like to "share" them with 30 teams. Now if you tested positive would you like to "share"? This brings implications, not only to the scouting world but if the player heads off to school. Opens up a huge can of worms.
Legally, just like before you are hired, you submit in writing to a test knowing full well the implications if you test positive you may not get hired. But that's done with everyone, here you are only going to test the top 200 and like PG says, who the heck knows beforehand who is going to be the top 200 in the draft and who is not.
If you test one then test eveyone, post draft.
I do agree it could be that teams are looking for a way to cut bonus but on the other hand I read that they don't want to adhere to slot this year.
Mine had to sumbit to a test prior to spring training, it wasn't random, no choice. I don't see the problem in milb, most don't make it, you got to get it on the higher level. How about you submit to a test before we add you to the 40 man, the 25 man? MLB can't get around the union, so why not go after kids? I just don't get it, I am not sure either if it is a good place to draw the line.
I was thinking what you posted, mainly the implications.
I am not sure, but could be (and what was told before this really got serious) based on what makes some sense
, the player gets tested and is revealed the results and then asked if they would like to "share" them with 30 teams. Now if you tested positive would you like to "share"? This brings implications, not only to the scouting world but if the player heads off to school. Opens up a huge can of worms.Legally, just like before you are hired, you submit in writing to a test knowing full well the implications if you test positive you may not get hired. But that's done with everyone, here you are only going to test the top 200 and like PG says, who the heck knows beforehand who is going to be the top 200 in the draft and who is not.
If you test one then test eveyone, post draft.
I do agree it could be that teams are looking for a way to cut bonus but on the other hand I read that they don't want to adhere to slot this year.
Mine had to sumbit to a test prior to spring training, it wasn't random, no choice. I don't see the problem in milb, most don't make it, you got to get it on the higher level. How about you submit to a test before we add you to the 40 man, the 25 man? MLB can't get around the union, so why not go after kids? I just don't get it, I am not sure either if it is a good place to draw the line.
Ok,...thank goodness. I am finally starting to understand.
Perhaps I was not crazy for doubting how they could possibly know which exact 200 top players were going to be drafted, ahead of time.
Thank you to everyone for taking the time to explain to me about this whole issue.
Perhaps I was not crazy for doubting how they could possibly know which exact 200 top players were going to be drafted, ahead of time.
Thank you to everyone for taking the time to explain to me about this whole issue.
PG
This is where the problem lie's.
The player should not be allowed to sign if they tested positive for PED's.
No exception's.
It's the only way to clean it up.
And MLB is not doing that.
They are rewarding the offender's with big contracts and hopeing they don't get caught again.
EH
quote:Personally, I would think that mandatory testing before signing would make much more sense. Then the club can decide if they still want to sign the player and clean him up.
This is where the problem lie's.
The player should not be allowed to sign if they tested positive for PED's.
No exception's.
It's the only way to clean it up.
And MLB is not doing that.
They are rewarding the offender's with big contracts and hopeing they don't get caught again.
EH
I am sure that MLB has investigated the ramications of the legal side---they would have to be insane not to have done so
I think it won't fly with just the TOP 200 Prospects because #1, who determines the Top 200 ?
I like the above mentioned concept of testing all the drafted players immediately after the draft is completed---this would do two things---eliminate the concern about who is the top 200 and secondly the expense could be put on the team who drafted the player not on MLB itself---spreads the $$$ impact across the board---also keep in mind that teams do a lot of research on the players they have interest in and they are pretty much aware of the character traits of the players they draft--sometime they goof but on the whole they do a pretty good job
I give MLB credit for striving to right the ship---they may never get it right in everyones eyes but at least they are trying
I think it won't fly with just the TOP 200 Prospects because #1, who determines the Top 200 ?
I like the above mentioned concept of testing all the drafted players immediately after the draft is completed---this would do two things---eliminate the concern about who is the top 200 and secondly the expense could be put on the team who drafted the player not on MLB itself---spreads the $$$ impact across the board---also keep in mind that teams do a lot of research on the players they have interest in and they are pretty much aware of the character traits of the players they draft--sometime they goof but on the whole they do a pretty good job
I give MLB credit for striving to right the ship---they may never get it right in everyones eyes but at least they are trying
quote:Originally posted by shortstopmom:
Ok,...thank goodness. I am finally starting to understand.
Now you can explain it to me cause I sure don't understand it.
They are trying to prove they are trying with some players who will never make it... wrong level to go after, IMO.
Examples... Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
Examples... Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
Doesn't the MLB employ lawyers?? How did this get by them?
The thing is most kids will comply to chase the dream
The thing is most kids will comply to chase the dream
clean means no worries as the question is MOOT
TPM:
HA!!!
All I understand now, ( kinda sorta ) is that at least I had valid questions and that I was not a complete airhead
for not understanding how this was supposed to work. I kinda felt like there was an elephant in the room and I was the only one who couldn't see it. I was thinking nievely with the thought that " if you have nothing to hide,...then what's the big deal about submitting to the test? ".
And about understanding the legalities part:..... I figured that many would say that this type of pre-testing is against people's consitutional rights.
njbb:
I think you are absolutely, 100% correct.
quote:Now you can explain it to me cause I sure don't understand it.
HA!!!
All I understand now, ( kinda sorta ) is that at least I had valid questions and that I was not a complete airhead
And about understanding the legalities part:..... I figured that many would say that this type of pre-testing is against people's consitutional rights.
njbb:
quote:The thing is most kids will comply to chase the dream
I think you are absolutely, 100% correct.
First of all, there is no law that says an employer cannot require applicants to submit to drug testing. So if Wal-Mart or whoever wanted to make that a condition of college students interviewing, it could.
Of course, if no one comes to interview, that policy might come under review at Wal-Mart, but that's the free market at work, not the result of any law.
In the case of MLB, so many people are trying to get in, folks will submit to almost anything. JerseyDad can tell you some of the things you have to sign along the way that are, well, let's just say "intrusive". All under threat that if you don't sign them, you're off the list.
MLB's problems implementing testing are a result of the collective bargaining agreement with the union. But amateurs are not members of, nor protected by, the union. So, MLB is trying not so much to catch kids now, but to inculcate the next generation of players into a new era of testing. Within a few years, testing will just be part of the deal for a ballplayer, nothing worth fighting over. Within 12 years, no one will remember a time without testing. It's actually a pretty shrewd way of outmaneuvering the union if you ask me.
Of course, if no one comes to interview, that policy might come under review at Wal-Mart, but that's the free market at work, not the result of any law.
In the case of MLB, so many people are trying to get in, folks will submit to almost anything. JerseyDad can tell you some of the things you have to sign along the way that are, well, let's just say "intrusive". All under threat that if you don't sign them, you're off the list.
MLB's problems implementing testing are a result of the collective bargaining agreement with the union. But amateurs are not members of, nor protected by, the union. So, MLB is trying not so much to catch kids now, but to inculcate the next generation of players into a new era of testing. Within a few years, testing will just be part of the deal for a ballplayer, nothing worth fighting over. Within 12 years, no one will remember a time without testing. It's actually a pretty shrewd way of outmaneuvering the union if you ask me.
Are you saying you are all surprised by this knee-jerk reaction by MLB after their embarassment and ignorance?
One extreme to the other
One extreme to the other
quote:First of all, there is no law that says an employer cannot require applicants to submit to drug testing.
Midlo, to an extent, I agree completely.
But we are not talking about high school/college age people who have applied.
We are talking about MLB going to the athlete and saying we "might" want to include you in the draft, if you are in the top 200 potential candidates, and before we have any further dealings, have you submit to drug testing.
This is exactly like Wal Mart going to Stanford/Harvard and saying you are yet to apply, but you would be a good prospect to apply, but "BEFORE" you apply, you need to agree to sign all releases and be tested.
To equate the draft with "applying" has intriguing legal issues for MLB. How many posts are there on this board which say that MLB decides who gets drafted, not the player.
Not one of these potential draftees will have "applied" with MLB.
Watch that to be an area of change going forward.
njbb, MLB has the best that money, $6,000,000,000 of it can buy. Of course they had those when they fought Curt Flood and Messersmith over the reserve clause and lost.
I still maintain if WalMart heads into Stanford and Harvard and says we want to drug test the best seniors to determine which can apply to work for us, the outrage would be resounding.
Funny how MLB thinks the "dream," that only 750 players per year achieve, makes baseball different.
My oldest son was just recently hired for an important job at the regional Nuclear power plant. First he was retired from the Navy then interviewed and offered the job. Before he was hired for real, he had to take a drug test. Once he passed the drug teat he was offered a contract.
If he wasn’t going to be offered a contract, he wouldn’t have had to take the drug test before hand. So it wasn’t… Take the drug test and then apply. It was be accepted and then pass a drug test. This is regulated by government standards. I can’t imagine having to take a drug test before “applying” for a job. I can understand being offered the job and then having to pass a drug test.
I have a hard time believing that MLB can do things differently without potential problems along the way.
If he wasn’t going to be offered a contract, he wouldn’t have had to take the drug test before hand. So it wasn’t… Take the drug test and then apply. It was be accepted and then pass a drug test. This is regulated by government standards. I can’t imagine having to take a drug test before “applying” for a job. I can understand being offered the job and then having to pass a drug test.
I have a hard time believing that MLB can do things differently without potential problems along the way.
PG, if things slow down in Iowa and you are looking for a legal position......
Your analysis of the experience of your son very much conforms to drug testing laws under both Federal and State limitations.
The fact that MLB will have to deal with federal laws, state laws, and specifically with CA laws on drug testing for every player drafted from CA will only serve to complicate their dilemmas.
Your analysis of the experience of your son very much conforms to drug testing laws under both Federal and State limitations.
The fact that MLB will have to deal with federal laws, state laws, and specifically with CA laws on drug testing for every player drafted from CA will only serve to complicate their dilemmas.
sounds like the team can ask the potential draft pick to test before they pick him. sounds no different than the psych. test. if you pass your offered a bonus. good business ?
maybe they should have done this with mlb players before a new contract?
maybe they should have done this with mlb players before a new contract?